The Cecil Whig., 1887-05-14

ihn pbSStSNlpI, lHtItloIt, COHltTS All H.
creased advantage.
Monopoly of the land within a small
area enables the monopolist to increase
its rental above the natural level. But
there limits beyond which such artificial
price can neither be raised nor main
tained. Suppose one man bou yht all the
real estate on Wall street and at once ad-
vanced his rents twenty-five per cent.
The advance would be paid only until
other quarters could be obtained. In the
end, he might find his rents less than at
first, because the business once transacted
IN Wall street had moved and would not
return
If all the land in the country were
owned by one individual, he would not
be subject to competition, and there
would be no practical remedy against
unfair prices and rents, except by re-
sIrictive laws or violence. If all the land
we're owned by the State, exorbitant
rents could only be reduced by either
peaceful or violent change in the ma
tIonal policy. Far more fully than at
present. the tenure of every mans home
would be dependent upon the manner in
which government was administered.
Officials would have greater power than
they now have, to show favoritism and
to practice in ustice.
Except to limited extent, men are
not satisfied with merely the right to
possess and use personal property. This
Is so because a man can usually crafty
his desires or supply his wants more fully
by the complete ownership of a thing
than he can by its partial ownership.
When man directly, or indirectly, be-
slows labor upon personal property and
thereby renders it more valuable, his
labor has become inseparably associated
! with such property, and its absolute
ownership Is essential to securing pay for
his work, except to the extent to which
such thing can be personally used. A
man who converts bars of iron into
Thousand hOrseshoes is not satisfied with
the right to use those shoes on his own
horse. lie has worked on iron and crea-
ted value, and this value every instinct
tells him belongs absolutely to its crea-
tor. Men are not satisfied with the mere
right to possess and use land. for the
| Identical reasons which make them de-
sire the complete ownership of personal
property. They seek the full ownership
of land, because they want to own fully
the value which their labor on that land
has created
Land was originally held in common as
it now is.by savage tribes. A sparse pop.
| ulation, living a nomadic life and sub
slstlng by gathering wild fruits, hunting
and fishing, are satisfied with circum-
| stances, the requirements of each man
are met by an undivided interest in all
the land and no definite exclusive own
ership of any part of it.
Desire Tor division of land begins with
the building of permanent homes and the
| development of agriculture and the in
| dustrial arts. AS soon as nan bestows
| considerable labor, or carries on par.
tlcular industry, upon certain piece of
| land, his first impulse is to secure perma-
nent possession, and his next desire, ex-
| elusive ownership. He first sees the ad-
vantages of permanent occupation, and
hnally learns that ownership of the land
| is requisite both to insure permanent
possession and also to enable him to OBJ
| tain the full benefit of the value which
his labor has conferred thereon.
As tand has no intrinsic rdlue, it noces.
sarily toll0ps Mdt cheh man conters er-
trinsic CdJue upon it By tie creati0n Of GER
tain conditions, such crtrinsic calue not be-
ing separaJle from tile land, Gun be olrned
and fully enjoyed only By ounersAip Of the
Land upon lchich such ertrinsic Ualue has
thus been conferred. Otherwise, the oc-
cupant of land which he improves creates
value he cannot fully enjoy. because it is
inseparably connected with something
not owned by himself. 1t necessarily
follows, that to the extent which a man,
who permanently improves land, is pre-
vented from becoming the owner of such
land, he is prevented from enjoying the
fruit of his own labor. Denial of pr-
vate ownership of land is therefore de-
NAL of mans right to the full fruit of
the work he has performed in perma-
nently improving 1t. I
1t has been said that man cannot justly
become the owner of land, because land
was not made by man but by the Crea-
| tor. Iron lead, copper and various other
metals were made by the same Being
who created land. Is private ownership
| of those metals wrong?
Traced to their source, all forms of
wealth and every enjoyment are found
due to the creative power of the natural
laws and forces which the great Bene
factor has seen fit to establish and main
tain. But, because the growth of wool
was ordained by the Deity, does it follow
that the man whose labors are spent in
the care of sheep has no more right to
their fleece than he who spends his time
in idlenesS? The Lord created all kinds |
of animals. But does this fact prove
that private ownership of COW or a
horse is crime? Does it show that all |
domestic animals should be owned by
the State and rented to individuals?
1t has been said that mans private
ownership of land is necessarily an injury
to all other men. This is equivalent to
saying that it is public injury to allow
a man to reap the full benefit of the labor |
which he has SO performed as to make |
its value inseparable from the land upon
which it has been spent. Such a saying |
assumes that work devoted to the perma |
nent improvement of land is SO much |
less meritorious than other forms of la |
Dor, that it is contrary to public policy |
to allow its full reward to be received by |
him who performs it.
The attempt has been made to prove |
that private ownership of land is IN itself |
an evil, by asking: What would happen |
if one man owned all the land in the
world and refused to sell or rent any |
part of it? 1t might be asserted that the |
private ownership of grain and all kinds |
of seed was public isjury; and, in proof |
thereof, it might be asked: What would |
happen if one man owned all the grain |
and seed in the world and refused to let |
any one have particle of them: Such |
foolish questions ignore the broad dis
tlnction between things bad in them |
selves and the perversiOn and misuse of
good things.
The earth contains land enough for all |
the dwellers thereon. Ii one man have |
absolute ownership of portion of the |
earth, he does not thereby necessarily
debar other men from ownership of land.
If one man own large amount of land
and unfairly hinder other men from be-
coming the owners of the ground requi- |
site for their needs. without doubt he in
lures other men. The same thing is true
of the ownership of very large amount
of money, machinery, provisions, or any
other form of personal property, when
such ownership is virtually made a source
of oppression. But, in bo,h cases, the
private ownership is not Of ITSELF the es-
sence of the evil. The wrong is simply
a misuse, a peryerSion of mans nat
ural right to create and own the wealth
which is separable from land, and is
therefore called Personal estate, and to
create and own the form of wealth which
is inseparable from land and is therefore
called Real estate.
The conceded evils of the monopoly IN
few hands of immense tracts of land
form no greater reason for denial of a
mans right to own a homestead, or a
reasonable amount of land, than the pos
session of a vast amount of money by
one man, with it's inevitable evils, forms
a valid reason for entirely abolishing
Of